We are catching up with the Regents meetings of last week. So far, we have summarized the Tuesday session and what occurred on Wednesday morning. On Wednesday afternoon, three committees met: National Labs, Public Engagement and Development, and Governance. As always, we preserve these and the other Regents recordings indefinitely since the Regents, for no particular reason, delete them after one year. Links to the meetings are provided below.
The Governance session was divided into open and closed segments. Unfortunately, the interesting part was closed, a review of collective bargaining developments which likely featured discussion of the recently-concluded student-worker strike and its aftermath. The open segment lasted only a few minutes and consisted of a series of routine approvals.
At the meeting of the National Labs committee, members approved a $1.5 million child day-care facility for Los Alamos. As blog readers will know, UC currently has a management role in three national labs: Lawrence Berkeley, Lawrence Livermore, and Los Alamos. These three labs - which at one time were referred to as the nuclear labs - are outgrowths of the Manhattan Project of World War II. At this meeting, however, the committee approved making a bid to manage a fourth lab, the Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research in Frederick, Maryland. UC Health appears to be the driving force behind this expansion. It would be something that goes beyond the Manhattan Project origins. Nonetheless, it could be argued that a still earlier history is involved, although no one made that point. In the 1930s, before the Manhattan Project, some of the private funding for UC-Berkeley's cyclotrons was for the use of radiation to treat cancer.
At Public Engagement and Development, the meeting started with a conversation via Zoom with State Senator Ben Allen who represents a district that includes UCLA. Allen spoke approvingly of the compact with the governor. As seems to be routine, no one noted that the governor's January budget proposal includes a nominal cut in funding. And in real terms, even the compact's increase for "core" functions is below the current rate of inflation. UCLA Chancellor Block asked about the long-term outlook for the state budget. Allen didn't answer directly but alluded to the heavy dependence of the budget on capital gains and the resulting link to the ups and downs of financial markets. He noted the problem of the big drop in enrollment in community colleges which could result in fewer transfers to UC and - perversely - force a drop in admissions of freshmen due to the formula of one transfer student for every two freshmen. Something needed to be done, but what that might be was not explored.
There followed a review of fundraising at UC-Merced and UC fundraising more generally. After that, there was a review of legislative developments. Bills were being submitted in the legislature that limit the ability of UC to contract out for services, bonds for UC and CSU capital projects, and regulation of repatriation of Native American artifacts held by UC.
As we noted in our review of the January budget proposal for 2023-24, language was included in the budget documents dealing with admission of transfer students by UCLA. Apparently, no language to that effect was included in the actual budgetary bill submitted to the legislature. UCOP is attempting to find out exactly what the governor wants.
===
To hear the text above, click on the link below:
https://ia904704.us.archive.org/3/items/new-year-outlook/jan%2018%20pm.mp3
===
To access the entire Wednesday afternoon video recordings, go to:
https://archive.org/details/public-engagement-and-development-committee-1-18-23pm
For Governance:
For National Labs:
For Public Engagement and Development:
No comments:
Post a Comment